linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] i2c: i2c-qcom-geni: Parse Error correctly in i2c GSI mode

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <xdefqlzo6ttlpxzi2o6yjf7pkhdokx377lblqtrgleoxua5dfu@mtolpvw6lln2>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 11:49:15 +0200
From: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
To: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
Cc: konrad.dybcio@...aro.org, andersson@...nel.org, wsa@...nel.org, 
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, Mukesh Kumar Savaliya <quic_msavaliy@...cinc.com>, 
	quic_vdadhani@...cinc.com, Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] i2c: i2c-qcom-geni: Parse Error correctly in i2c GSI
 mode

Hi,

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 10:27:52PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On 16-04-24, 17:05, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > > > Anyway, the changes are in -next. What do we do now? Do I revert
> > > > it? Mukesh, can you please agree with Vinod?
> > > 
> > > I dont apply patches to other subsystem without the ack. Either way you
> > > can ask always! 
> > 
> > Yes, you are totally right; but please, keep in mind that this
> > patch has some history and I would have loved to hear from you
> > earlier. Anyway...
> 
> There was merge window, I dont look up during that. Then I had some
> family stuff and travel to take care... Things happen.
> 
> When in doubt pls ask, a gentle reminder goes long way!

sure... I'll be more patient... thanks!

> > > I will leave it upto you...
> > 
> > ... Mukesh, I'm sorry, but I'm going to revert this patch again
> > until we address all the last minute issues from Vinod. The
> > silence on this thread is worrying me more than reverting it.
> > 
> > I hope this will be the last time I revert this patch.
> > 
> > Moreover, in order to avoid maintainers' rumble (:)), please
> > let's try to split patches that are touching more than one
> > subsystems keeping the logical meainings intact.
> 
> That is best. Very rarely we have a situation where we add
> changes which break bisect and it has to be clubbed together. But for
> other cases, it should always be split!

Please Mukesh, address Vinod's comments and let's get this patch
in.

Thanks,
Andi